[AFRI-Discuss] [AF-ALS-ICANN59-PROG] Finalizing Individual Membership Recommendation

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Jul 18 15:26:27 UTC 2017

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Jul 18, 2017 3:00 PM, "Aziz Hilali via AF-ALS-ICANN59-PROG" <
af-als-icann59-prog at icann.org> wrote:


Thank you very much Alan for these clarifications.

 Only one asked the chair to make a consensus call on the list for the ALS
reps who were absent. That's why I wrote my mail calling you for consensus.

SO: And thanks for honoring my request, thanks also to the entire members
present at the meeting for accepting the suggestion even though they were
the majority. I don't want to regret doing that as I believe it's the right
thing to do.

Overall one way or the other it's good this discussion happened as I
believe it has also informed and educated us more about AtLarge, our role
as ALSes and the principle of consensus building.


I would like to reassure our colleagues (who see what we are doing with
great suspicion) that individual members will not have the right to vote or
be eligible for leadership positions.

Thank you all for your comments and support.
Best Regards
Aziz Hilali


Merci beaucoup Alan pour ces précisions.

Chers collègues,

Après avoir lu tous les commentaires de nos collègues, je souhaite ajouter
que pas moins de 35 ALS ont participé à l'appel du mercredi 13 juillet.
Elles étaient toutes unanimes sur la question de l’adhésion individuelle.
Un seul a demandé à la présidence d'écrire aux ALS qui étaient absentes
pour un large consensus. C'est pourquoi j'ai écrit mon courrier pour vous
demander un consensus.

Durant tout mon mandat de Président, j'ai toujours cherché le consensus
dans nos décisions. Je l'ai également rappelé lors de nos discussions à
Johannesburg. S'il n'y a pas de consensus comme je l’avais espéré, je
serais obligé d'appliquer la règle démocratique de la majorité. La décision
finale sera prise par un vote formel de tous les membres d'AFRALO.

Je voudrais rassurer les collègues (qui voient ce que nous faisons avec
beaucoup de suspicion), que les membres individuels n'auront pas le droit
ni de voter ni d'être éligibles à des postes de direction.

Merci à vous tous pour vos commentaires et votre soutien.
Aziz Hilali
Président d’AFRALO

Le Lundi 17 juillet 2017 17h18, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a
écrit :

Dear Pastor Peters,

You addressed your questions to Aziz, but a few of them really are in my
domain and I will attempt to reply.

The message I sent Aziz was a reminder and not the result of a recent
ALAC action. In 2008/9, we had the first Independent Review of At-Large.
This process was a long and complicated one that involved extensive
consultation all all levels of the community. One of the recommendations

was that all RALOs investigate how (note "how", not
"if") to incorporate individual unaffiliated members into their
organization. That set of recommendations was approved by the ICANN Board
on 26 June 2009 (Resolution 2009-06-26-30).

At that time, NARALO already had individual members, but it was the only
RALO that did. The "Recommendation", once approved by the

Board, was no longer an option (and notably, no RALO objected to it!)
EURALO and eventually APRALO developed procedures, each in their own way,
to accommodate users unaffiliated with ALSes. AFRALO and LACRALO have not
done so to date.

The ongoing review of At-Large has come out with an even stronger
recommendation that individual users are essential, and that it MUST not
be required that a person interested in joining At-Large either form or
find an ALS. Although At-Large is generally not agreeing with the details
of this recommendation and particularly the implication that ALSes be
effectively abolished, all of our responses, including those of the RALOs
which all RALO members had a opportunity to contribute to, agreed that we
would have individual unaffiliated members in all regions. This
"compromise" has the advantage of allowing RALOs to set the
specific rules (within a reasonable envelope) of such individual


To address your number 2, the ALAC does not have direct jurisdiction over
RALOs, but RALOS are subject to certain rules made by the ALAC (and
developed with regional input) where the ICANN Bylaws and ALAC Rules of
Procedure give the ALAC such rights. Each RALO selects ALAC Members and
by doing so, the region gives those representatives the right to act on
their behalf.

Regarding your question 5 on the benefits of individual members, the
ICANN Bylaws identifies At-Large as the home of all individual Internet

users. As originally envisioned, there would be ALSes which would allow
(and I quote the Bylaws) "every individual Internet user who is a
citizen of a country within the RALO's Geographic Region to participate
in at least one of the RALO's At-Large Structures". Clearly this is
not the case now, and it is unrealistic to believe that this is possible.
Many ALSes have particular orientations or interests (such as yours) and
cannot be expected to accommodate everyone. And two sets of external
reviewers have recognized that requiring someone to set up a new ALS just
to be able to participate in a RALO is not reasonable.

At-Large had FAR TOO FEW PEOPLE who are really active in the policy work
for which ICANN exists. At-Large is not here to do outreach or organize
and participate in RALOs. These are necessary activities to allow us to
thrive, but the REAL reason we are here is to work with other parts of
ICANN representing user interests. Anything we can do to remove barriers
to allowing more participation is crucial to our existence.


At 16/07/2017 04:37 PM, Peters Omoragbon wrote:

Dear Mr. Aziz
>Thank you for your information and once again I apologise for my
unavoidable absence during the last call.

>On the issue in reference I oppose to any vote to be taken via electronic
means save for at a General Assembly  on the following grounds
>1. Please provide the transcript or link to the transcript of the ALAC
Meeting where the decision passed to you by the ALAC Chair was
>2. Ralos from icann set rules are to set their own guidelines which does
not conflict with icann rules of procedure for effective coordination of
their (RALOS) activities. If one is to decipher your information it
presupposes that ALAC is giving Ralos an ultimatum to take a decision on

issue(s) that is yet to receive consensus of the GA
>3. No decision was taken on any item at the GA once the GA resolved that
ALL items be referred back to the ROP WORKGROUP and represented to the

GA. So even though you are the chair of AFRALO you cannot over rulr the
highest decision making body of AFRALO -the GA.

>4. ROP WORKGROUP meeting is yet to be called and that is what should be
done asap.

>5. Of what emergent benefit is individual membership that it should
override other pressing issues confronting AFRALO to warrant this present

>Your call for a vote is procedurally defective and undemocratic.  It
is an attempt to rush Afralo to make decision through the back door for
the benefit of vested interests and individuals.
>We oppose this motion.
>Thank you.
>Pastor Peters Omoragbon
>On 16 Jul 2017 21:07, "Aziz Hilali via AFRI-Discuss"
<afri-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
>Dear Members,

>As per the information shared during our monthly call, It is been
brought to our attention by the ALAC Chair that as per the first ALAC
review requirements and the current At-Large Review (on-going)
recommendations, the RALOs are tasked with ensuring individual
membership. Therefore we need to get this particular item completed
>As you may recall during the General Assembly in Johannesburg, this
particular recommendation of the working group gained traction but we
could not formerly record it due to other recommendations and time
constraints. In view of this, I suggest we separate this recommendation
on individual membership which already gained traction and pass that now
to comply with At-Large reviews requirements.
>For reference, below is the link to the latest version of the
"Individual Membership » recommendation distributed in
>Item 7 of the recommendation currently reads as follows:
>The individual membership issue will be
reviewed in 2019 to reconsider their rights and duties of unaffiliated
members in light of the 2018 experience.
>I propose to modify it in this way:
>"The individual membership issue will be reviewed by or before 2
years after implementation to reconsider the rights and duties of
unaffiliated members in light of experience gained during initial
>I hereby, as AFRALO Chair, call for any objection to approving the
conditions under which individual membership will be implemented as
presented in the above recommendation.
>Kindly provide your response within 72hrs
>Best regards
>Chers membres,
>D'après les informations partagées lors de notre téléconférence
mensuelle, le président de l’ALAC a attiré notre attention sur le
fait que les RALO sont appelés à accepter les adhésions
individuelles, et ce suivant les exigences de la première revue de
l’ALAC et les recommandations de la revue actuelle d’At-Large, Par
conséquent, nous devons finir ce point particulier sans plus
>Comme vous le savez, lors de l’assemblée Générale Ã
Johannesburg, cette recommandation du groupe de travail a été
approuvée, mais nous n’avions pas pu l’officialiser à cause du
fait que toutes les recommandations étaient dans un même document et
que le temps ne nous a pas permis de les finir toutes. Pour cela, je
suggère que nous séparons cette recommandation sur l’adhésion
individuelle pour se conformer avec les exigence des revues
>Pour référence, voici le lien de la toute dernière version
distribuée à  Johannesburg de la recommandation relative Ã
l’adhésion individuelle:
>Le point 7 de la recommandation dit:
>La question des droits et devoirs des
membres individuels sera réexaminée en 2019 au vue de l’expérience
de 2018.
>Je propose de le modifier pour devenir:
>«La question des droits et devoirs des membres individuels sera
réexaminée 2 ans après la mise en oeuvre (ou avant) au vue de
l’expérience de la période d’essai».
>En ma qualité de Président d’AFRALO, je demande s’il y a des
objections pour l’approbation des conditions sous lesquelles
l’adhésion individuelle sera appliquée comme présenté dans la
recommandation mentionnée.
>Prière répondre dans les 72 heures.
>Aziz Hilali
>AFRI-Discuss mailing list
>AFRI-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Homepage for the region: http://www.afralo.org
>Posting guidelines to ensure machine translations of emails sent to
this list are more accurate: http://www.funredes.org/
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>AFRI-Discuss mailing list
>AFRI-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Homepage for the region: http://www.afralo.org
>Posting guidelines to ensure machine translations of emails sent to this
list are more accurate: http://www.funredes.org/mistica/english/emec/method_

AF-ALS-ICANN59-PROG mailing list
AF-ALS-ICANN59-PROG at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/afri-discuss/attachments/20170718/1a1f8fc0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the AFRI-Discuss mailing list